Behaviour Change

PROPAGANDA FOR CHANGE is a project created by the students of Behaviour Change (ps359) and Professor Thomas Hills at the Psychology Department of the University of Warwick. This work was supported by funding from Warwick's Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Source Credarrrrrbility . .

The
above advert from the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center
(IPR) utilizes Source Credibility to encourage recipients to accept it’s
message. An official blank background,
large emblem and source at which participants can gain further information on
the topic, all contribute to the official nature of the advert and
believability of the message. Source credibility states that the source of the
message has an affect on the perceived credibility of the message; we are more
convinced by messages conveyed by a high than a low credible source (Hovland & Weiss, 1951).

Sternthal, Dholakia and Leavitt (1978)
suggest however that cognitive factors can futher strongly influence source
credibility. They suggest the original opinion of the receiver is a strong determinant
on the influence source credibility will have. When a recipient hears a message
which challenges their opinion, rehearsal occurs of both existing thoughts on
the matter and also the argument presented to them. Recipients will reject the
message, e.g. “Piracy is not a victimless crime,” if in being against the
communicator’s advocacy make cognitive reviews themselves of the
counterarguments available, i.e. “film corporations also exploit individuals”.
Credibility of source denotes whether counterargument is inhibited or not. High
source credibility prevents counterargument, and potential change in opinion
whereas low source credibility allows counterargument and often leads to
retention of original opinion.

Sternthal, Dholakia and Leavitt (1978)
used participants who had a favourable view to a position and presented them
with an appeal to this position that had either a high or low credibility
source. This was achieved by either presenting the identity of the communicator
to participants before the message was conveyed or after. It was found that
presenting the communicator (the source) after the message (low credibility) had
less effect on changing participant standpoint, due to credibility being
offered too late in participant’s cognitive processes and less association being
attributed between message and source credibility, the communicator. Indeed in
the above example, the Emblem of the IPR if first presented before the take
home message. Other studies have replicated this finding of little effect of
source credibility pending messages (Ward & McGinnies,
1974).

A common standpoint
may be, especially amongst younger individuals, in modern society that piracy IS
a victimless crime. A distinct amount of the potential audience for the advert
above may begin their viewership with the contrary standpoint. It is therefore
integral that the above advert exude high source credibility if changes in
opinion are required.

This is achieved in
part by presenting the IPR Emblem first. We first understand the message is
coming from a highly credible source.

Interestingly the
advert then presents its message as a ‘counterargument’ in itself, directly
addressing the reader and offering little scope for the recipient to consider a
counter-counter argument. As Sternthal, Dholakia and Leavitt (1978) suggest,
Source Credibility is often only rejected when counterarguments can be made,
however the obvious counter argument to the message above is the already held recipient
standpoint that piracy is a victimless, ‘white crime’.

This leaves little
room for further objection, and the advert ends by directing any further
contention or counter argument the recipient might have to a large source or
body of further information or knowledge, with which they may or may not wish
to argue further.